Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The wedding is all over and a new superstar emerges to take the world by storm. It will not be long before 'Kate Mania' is the talk of the world.
I am a great supporter of our constitutional monarchy and have no time for the purse lipped cumudgeonly republican tendancy that is thankfully a tiny minority.
That said I did not take a great deal of interest in the wedding and, frankly, get bored by too much ceremony and the whole 'church thing' I find a total turn off.
That said the events yesterday demonstrate one of the many reasons for our monachy being Britain's greatest asset.
The day went off with the kind of perfection that only our two greatest institutions, the monachy and our military, can manage. A truly brilliant spectacle that no-where else in the world can match.
The BBC estimate at around 2bn people worldwide were watching. A third of the world's population. That is staggering, who else might get married and attract such a massive audience, nobody, nobody else in the world can match that.
Imagine the boost that will have for our tourism industry in the years ahead. A boost that our new superstar, the Duchess of Cambridge, no - blow that, Princess Kate is what she will be known by despite being technically incorrect, will add to in the years ahead.
Imagine the boost our fashion industry will get.
What about wedding too - there will no doubt a great gain to the hospitality industry too....
The knock on effect of all this will be a massive help to our economy.....just when it is needed.
Oh yes - we have the Jubillee to come soon as well........Billions worldwide will tune in to that too further boosting our economy....
The royals are Britain's biggest advantage in world trade and influence.
That is why the misable cumudgeonly republicans in this country will always be an out of touch minority.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
jest.......why can I correct the typo in the title?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Barryw
I'm no royalst, but dont want a president type set up either, so not sure of the way forward.
it would be nice to weigh up the cost of all of the royal family(not just the immediate family)
but the 79th aunty who we also pay for
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
titles cannot be altered unfortunatly.
I don't recognise myself in the description "miserable curmudgeon", and I don't think that rejecting a self-defensive clan with a reduced gene pool and their fingers firmly in my wallet makes me such! I have never understood why anyone would labour under the delusion that a group of people were better than the rest or deserved more support than the rest based solely on spurious genetics. That appears to me to be a slippery slope...........
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Bern
Blast beat me to it again
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BERN;MAREK
Now just imagine had i said that the replies i would have got
i will watch wtih interest
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
So we see my point being made here.
Including the old republican myths too being repeated....
The Royal Family gave up the income from the Royal Estates to the government in return for the Civil list payments. The Royal estates income is far the higher.
Much of what some call the 'cost of the Royal Family' actually refers to the costs of palaces and other national treasures that would remain even if we had no monarchy.
The fact is there is no financial case against the monarchy at all.
On the contrary - the economic and financial case is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
I enjoy weddings there was a time in my life when wedding invites arrived weekly nowadays I appear to spend more time attending funerals which I don't enjoy..as much until it comes to the wake.
So it's only right and proper that the country regains some of the public money outlaid yesterday. The policing bill alone came to a cool £20 million.
My son enjoyed the day as he had to work and received double pay for his troubles.
The capitalist!!!
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
OK let's try and be rational the Crown owns the Duchy of Lancaster. This generates an income of about £20 million a year which is the private property of Queen to do with as she wishes (so long as she remains the Sovereign). If this country were a republic, this income would belong to the state.
Similarly,Charles owns the £16.5 million income from the Duchy of Cornwall. In a republic this income would also belong to the state.
The Queen also personally owns a wide range of investments and other assets which generate a further income of millions of pounds a year.
The Queen is paid £7.9 million a year by the state to do her job. A lot of this money is spent on paying her staff's wages at her various palaces and offices. £350,000 of this is paid to her husband as an annual salary for doing his essential work of walking around, shaking hands, and making racist jokes. The rest she spends on herself and her daily or official activities in one way or another, or on food and other such expenses.
Under new arrangements brought in by the Tories the above payment will be proportionately linked to the profits of the Crown Estate, rather than capped at a certain sum. Profits from the Estate are predicted to double or triple in future years due to investments in offshore wind power (The entire seabed around the UK belongs to the Crown Estate). Thus the queen's payments will similarly increase.
The state also gives the queen about £30 million a year (through two 'gifts in aid') to pay for the maintenance of her palaces and to cover her travel expenses, just to make sure that she doesn't have to dip into her own pockets for such things.
Furthermore the state spends an estimated £100 million a year on policing and security for the Queen and the royal family more this year cos of the wedding and an increase in Jubilee year..
On top of all these payments, the state also pays for the expenses of Prince's Charles, and Andrew and other royals in their various official capacities. Prince Andrew also holds a separate position as a trade envoy for the UK. In 2011 he spent £620,000 of taxpayer's money in this capacity.
Adding all of the above payments together, one reaches a sum of approximately £176 million per year (comprised of money both spent by the state, and of lost income that would otherwise belong to the state), dedicated to maintaining the Queen and her immediate family.Taken as a whole, the resources spent on maintaining the monarchy in its current form totally eclipse the sums spent on the presidents and ceremonial heads of state of republican nations. France, Italy, and the USA have greater incomes generated by tourism than the UK, despite having no ruling monarchs. The argument for the monarchy in this respect is therefore demonstrably invalid. Therefore the UK monarchy is a rip off, and should either be thoroughly reformulated or else done away with altogether
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MAREK;
The cost is questionabe, but so is ny alternative,
so not sure of the way forward
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
I don't begrudge anyone any money. I don't care how much anyone earns, genuinely. I have always felt this way and recent events for me have simply underscored my disinterest in acquisition for its own sake. But I do resent and refute any families claim to privilege based solely on genetics! I also think BarryWs post is a little disingenuous to say the least and will, against medical advice, take it with a shovel of salt!! Those "treasures" that apparently fund themselves already belong to us and following your argument would on their own bring in the tourists the royal family and their hangers-on trot out as their raison d'etre. However Royalists present their case, I cannot see how much my life and that of the country is improved by the existence of the royals that couldn't be achieved in a better, more affirming way. We get a lot of flak on here for defending religious beliefs, but this seems to me to rank up there with the potentially delusional and just as (economically and morally) destructive belief systems! No disrespect intended (or overlooked....)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
don't sit on the fence marek, do you want to keep the monarchy or not?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Marek - I have no time to go through in detail but you seem to be demonstrating old fashioned socialist confiscatory tendencies, in other words you are up for legalising theft as a way to turn the financial argument around. Even in doing that you ignore the economic benfits and not to mention the influence and prestige days such as yesterday provide UK PLC.
n your grey and undistinguished republican state the UK would have given up considerable influence and prestige, there would be no more days such as yesterday and none of the massive financial benefits the economy will gain for decades to come.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Keef
The cost isn't questionable in one sense as its a matter of public record. Like always what is questionable is one's (my) interpretation of those figures.
I suppose the way forward is a totally self financing royal family. Where they pay their own household bills,like the rest of us, and meet all the policing and security bills. Her total wealth is estimated at a fluctuating £1.9 billion so she's hardly skint or looking for a quick ''payday loan'' to pay off her leccy bill.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MAREK/BERN
Think this debate will run and run
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Why assume a republic will be grey and dull??!! Nothing could be further from the truth - don't confuse dictatorships with republics, andf don't ignore the similarities between Third World dictatorships which maintain the status quo to promote the privileged life of the leaders and the keeping in place of the masses and the Royal systems !!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BERN
IM unsure if we want/need a republic or continue with a royal family(maybe as marek indicates very much slimmed down one)
the debate will go on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
, so! 